In article <8811161012.AA13091@kleph.ai.mit.edu>, cph@KLEPH (Chris Hanson)
writes:
>Bill Rozas has expended no small effort in the MIT Scheme compiler to
>make the Y combinator produce good results, and these timings are
>evidence of that. Still not perfect, but I believe Bill claims that
>he can make the output code identical given a bit more work.
Is there a particular reason why its worth a lot of effort to make Y
compile efficiently?? More the the point, does anyone have examples
of code that is more elegant (or better in some other way) than, say,
a simple recursive implementation??
Bruce